The "True Story" of Wonder Woman's Marston Ménage à Trois

How much does anyone really know about the women who inspired Wonder Woman?

How much does anyone really know about the psychologist who created Wonder Woman or the women who shared his household and inspired him? Not nearly as much as a lot of people seem to think.

1. Dr. William Moulton Marston (1893-1947) was both a psychologist and a lawyer, as was his wife Elizabeth. He is often called (incorrectly but with good reason) the inventor of the lie detector. It is worth noting that John Augustus Larson, who is more accurately recognized as the primary inventor of the polygraph, himself said it was fair to call Marston the inventor of the lie detector test for his innovations in how to use physiological signs to attempt to assess veracity (Bunn, 2012; Lloyd, 2017).

2. Like Martin E.P. Seligman (1998) and other positive psychologists of today, Marston challenged psychologists and psychiatrists for overemphasizing the worst parts of human nature. His seminal work, Emotions of Normal People (1928), cut to the heart of this problem: How can we really understand what is abnormal and unhealthy if we do not also examine what is normal and healthy? From this foundation, he built his DISC theory which has its influence to this day (Wood, 2017).

3. Marston created the character Wonder Woman, who debuted in a two-part story in All-Star Comics #8 (1941) and Sensation Comics #1 (1942).

4. He and his wife, Elizabeth Holloway Marston, had another woman, Olive Byrne, living with them. After Bill Marston died, Elizabeth and Olive stayed together for the rest of their lives — technically the rest of Olive's life, because Elizabeth outlived her.

No one really knows what the intimate nature of that relationship was. Works by author Les Daniels (e.g., Daniels, 2004) popularized the idea that it was polyamorous, with Bill fathering children by both Elizabeth and Olive. It is unclear how Daniels would have known this for sure. When asked about this later in life, William and Elizabeth's son Pete either would say that the adults had their part of the house, the kids had theirs, and the kids did not know what went on over there, or would scoff with "Who cares? Why do you want to know that?" In my conversations with Pete, I never went there. He did tell me that Bill and Betty (Elizabeth) worked, while Dotsie (Olive) raised the kids. The Marstons legally adopted both of Olive's children, but that was only a legality. She was an equal partner, fully a parental authority to all their children.

Bill, Betty, and Dotsie did indeed live in a ménage à trois in the literal sense of the term: "household of three." It was a household of three adults raising a family together. Could it have been a ménage à trois in the more commonly used meaning of the phrase, to refer to three-way sex acts? It could have. Maybe it was and maybe it was not, but my point is that absolutely no one knows. The upcoming motion picture Professor Marston and the Wonder Women not only indicates that it was, but also that the two women enjoyed a sexual relation together apart from Bill as well.

Bill, Betty, and Olive are all long departed. As of this past year, Pete is too. It's a basic legal principle that you can't libel the dead (Fowler, 2011). That doesn't make it right to misrepresent known facts or present fiction as fact, though. You can't libel igneous rock either, but you still shouldn't say it's made from sediment (which would be sedimentary rock). It's not libel by definition anyway because there's no reason to think the filmmakers were out to harm anyone, but I've seen fans online use that word.

Some of the promotional material for the aforementioned motion picture has begun to say that it is "based on" the true story (when, in my meager opinion, "inspired by" would be more accurate). However, there are a lot of posters and other promotional materials outside that call it in all caps, "THE TRUE STORY..." Well, see for yourself.

Langley: My name is Travis Langley. I'm a friend of the Marston family, so this is actually very hard. (Disclosure of that seemed appropriate.)Now that trailer said, "based on," but you have a lot of promotional material out there that says, "the true story." So we're wondering where you got information, such as: No one we've ever spoken with who knew them knew the relationship between Betty and Dotsie to be sexual. If it was, that's fine! But where did you find proof that no one who knew them, to our knowledge, had?

Robinson: That's a difficult question, because I did talk to a source who said that that was her interpretation, who had studied them.

Langley: Studied?

Robinson: But it was, it's tricky, because I don't know if.... (Ellipsis indicates unfinished sentence, not missing words.) I chose to tell the story as my interpretation of the story, and I think that there's a lot of facts that are indisputable about the Marstons, and I feel that there's a lot that's open to interpretation. So as a filmmaker, this was my interpretation of their story.

Biopics take great liberties with the stories being told. We know that. Our objection is that fiction inspired by a true story should never be called "the true story" when there's no evidence that it is.

Why does any of this matter? All those people are dead, so they can't be hurt, right? If Elizabeth and Olive stayed together as sisters, but people began saying they became a lesbian couple, so what? Well, for one thing, keep in mind the theme that runs across both Marston's science and his famous heroine with the magic lasso she uses to compel honest answers out of people. Wonder Woman lassos the truth. More importantly, though, I just don't feel we should have to explain what's so valuable about truth.

Why does any of this matter? It affects other people. When I saw the scene which misrepresented how Marston came to pitch Wonder Woman to his editor (by replacing editor Sheldon Mayer with publisher Max Gaines in the scene), I could not help but think how that is going to feel to the granddaughter who's named after Sheldon. Shortening the character's name from Suprema the Wonder Woman to simply Wonder Woman may be one of the most important suggestions ever made in comic book history, and Mayer deserves great recognition for that. We hope the film properly credits Elizabeth as the one who told Bill he needed to make his new character a super woman, because the comics already had enough boys. That's important to the film's central characters.

Why does any of this matter? I can give many more reasons, but here's an odd one: Mistruths about the dead can still mess things up for the living. We've been told that Professor Marston and the Wonder Women ends with a claim about Bill and Betty's son Pete Marston creating a museum in honor of Elizabeth and Olive. If so, that is going to inconvenience both the family keepers of the Wonder Woman Family Museum and everyone who tries to go to that museum expecting an Elizabeth/Olive museum. There is a Wonder Woman museum, but no Elizabeth/Olive museum (muse-eum?) exists. Now suppose I've been told wrong, and there is no such claim: well, then, I'd say the truth still matters, because repeating that mistruth (if it is such) would make me look bad when I'm stressing the need to get facts right. I keep getting conflicting reports about what it says.

My point? Lasso the truth.

FYI: After my question, someone official-seeming started screening the audience questions. I mean immediately after, right as Robinson began to respond.

P.S. Despite the film's content and Dr. Marston's own writings, we also have no reason to think either Elizabeth or Olive was ever into BDSM (bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism). If there is evidence of kink to either of them, that might be useful information.

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating for Professor Marston and the Wonder Women is "R for strong sexual content including brief graphic images, and language." (Sex scenes, yes, but nudity, no?) The film is reportedly not based on the book The Secret History of Wonder Woman. In fact, Robinson has expressed some skepticism about claims author Jill Lepore made in that book.

P.P.S. for the sake of disclosure: Together with co-editor Mara Wood, I'm the editor of the book Wonder Woman Psychology: Lassoing the Truth. In it, we got to publish Elizabeth Holloway Marston's previously unpublished memoir as chapter 4 (Marston, 2017). We are endlessly grateful to Christie Marston and family for allowing us that honor.

Fowler, M. (2011, January 25). Can a writer be sued for libeling the dead? (What would John Dean say?). Rights of Writers: http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/01/can-you-be-sued-for-libeling-dead-john.html.

Good piece, provides great perspective. But have you SEEN the movie? Your line "We've been told that Professor Marston and the Wonder Women ends with a claim about Bill and Betty's son Pete Marston creating a museum in honor of Elizabeth and Olive" leads me to believe you've not seen the movie.

How can you write about the relative accuracy of the film if you've not seen it?

That's a fair question, but I'm talking about how it has been promoted (which includes their choice of preview scenes) and the director's own answer regarding source material. We'd been trying to ask her about source material for months without getting an answer.

How can I write about that without seeing the film? Well, how could Carl Sandburg write about Abraham Lincoln without witnessing the delivery of the Gettysburg address? How does anyone write about dinosaurs without visiting the Jurassic Period? For that matter, how can a writer/director write a screenplay about the Marstons without speaking with them or anyone who knew them? We can. She can. We all just need to clarify when we're trying to report the true story and when we're making up historical fiction. I'm not reviewing a movie I have not seen. I'm asking questions.

I think the movie should not have been promoted as "the true story," but it does tell the truth about polyamorous relationships. Our loves are real! The polygraph test where Olive proves that it is possible to love two people at once is the central point of the movie, even though it is Moulton who should have been tested. Whether or not Elizabeth and Olive were sexually and/or romantically involved with each other is interesting, but irrelevant. Olive and Elizabeth were life partners and friends living under the same roof till death, and that is the truth of their relationship.

There was definitely a visible nipple (I believe Ms Hall's): I think that counts as nudity!

***

I enjoyed the movie immensely (even more the 2nd time). I'm disappointed it apparently failed at the box office in its (U.S.) opening weekend (This being 2017, I'm betting it will prove more of a success via streaming services, etc).

Regarding its historicity? Eh, I'm cool w/ it being historical fiction (I certainly don't accept that depictions of physical intimacy between Elizabeth and Olive could, alive or dead, ever be "libelous"!). Historical movies are ALWAYS idealized. If the beauty of the Elizabeth/Olive relationship, as shown, was physically idealized, why is that any different than, say, that Elizabeth wasn't as physically beautiful as Hall, Olive as Heathcote? As a film, it worked.

...that supposing or inferring an attraction between two women would be "libelous" if they were still alive. Disappointed in "Psychology Today" for giving this man a platform. Oh, well. Representation matters, and with this movie, women/lesbians/polyamorous partners were gifted some. I've heard from many friends that this film moved them and made them feel centered in a story for once, and frankly I'm not surprised that an angry white man found that disturbing and had to mansplain his objections to the black female lesbian director.

I was also really taken by surprise with the word "libel" since the word means to damage someone's reputation. I don't think it's fair to assume in 2018 talking about someone's homosexual or poly-amorous relationship is "damaging" anything. As several replies stated it opens up a world of truth to people who might think they are alone, or the feelings they have are wrong, unnatural, or unreal. This article would seem to support the idea a love between three people, or two women, is wrong, damaging, or not possible, which is very disappointing.

I don't read a lot of Psychology Today, but I assumed the articles were vetted in some way-shape-or form. This is the second one I've read recently where I'm left with serious doubts there's anyone reviewing this crap. I don't plan on revisiting PT for factual information in the future.

My wife and I watched the movie last night night and enjoyed it a great deal. But I was curious about its historical accuracy, and having read this piece, I'm sorry that the filmmaker did not include an "Inspired by true events" note at the beginning. Her interpretation (theory?) about the intimate details of the main characters' relationships is plausible, but when a filmmaker uses the mantle of history to lend additional power to a story that has such artistic judgment or speculation as its primary subject, I think she or he owes us fair warning to take the history with a large grain of salt.

Either that, or I need to be more cynical about watching "historical" movies. :-(

One reason that I wondered about the film's accuracy is that I recognized one blatant inaccuracy right away. At the end, following a screen statement that William Marston died of lung cancer in 1947 (and before the one about Pete Marston creating a museum to honor Elizabeth and Olive), this statement appeared:

"After he died, Marston's overtly sexual motifs were stripped from the Wonder Woman comic book...along with her powers."

The first part of that statement may be true; I haven't read comics from that era to know. What I DO know for a fact (easily verified by looking at the covers at a database like the one at the mycomicshop website) is that Wonder Woman was NOT stripped of her powers after Marston died. She retained them until 1968, when she was remodeled along the lines of super-spy Emma Peel of the British "Avengers" TV show, as part of an effort to make DC Comics more contemporary and socially relevant. (The same writer converted the science-fictional "Green Lantern" book into "Green Lantern / Green Arrow," with Green Arrow now a leftist Robin Hood figure who opened Green Lantern's eyes to problems like racism, political corruption, and corporate destruction of the environment.)

To suggest that DC Comics de-powered Wonder Woman after Marston's death---presumably because the men in charge were some combination of narrow-minded, cowardly, and misogynistic---is so misleading as to be a lie.

It's also misleading to say that after Gloria Steinem put Wonder Woman on the cover of the "Ms." magazine #1 (January 1972), her powers were "eventually" restored; in fact, she had them back less than a year later. (Issue #204 was dated Jan/Feb 1973, but actually published months earlier, as was the norm for comics then.) That's a pretty fast pivot, given the length of the editorial and production pipeline for comics.

If this seems like the nitpicking of an obsessive fanboy, so be it. Some of us really care about our favorite comic heroes---and about the writers and artists who created them and gave them life over the years, and the companies that manage (or mis-manage) their fates---and want the truth to be told about them. Or at least don't want lies to be presented as truth.

Personally, I have never seen a "true" movie from Hollywood...every screen play has embellishments to make it worth watching...for example, liberties have to be taken to portray inner thoughts (how boring would it be to hear an hour of narration of someone's thoughts?), and what takes pages and pages to describe a scene in a book takes about 3 seconds on film - and even that is an interpretation to fill in what wasn't described. That's not making excuses for fiction over fact - but let's not take much stock in "based on truth" vs. "truth" vs. "the true tale" vs. "inspired by truth," etc. If it comes from Hollywood, expect a version of facts, because truth is always relative, while facts are not. Has anyone seen a movie described as "all factual events" that wasn't a documentary? If it's not a documentary, expect embellishments.

...I think it's one thing to fictionalize a film's scenes and another to make essentially false claims in the written "Where are they now?" postscript statements. Imagine if Oliver Stone had closed "JFK" with written notes saying "Jacqueline Kennedy died a heartbroken widow" (well, maybe---30 years later, after a second marriage), and "LBJ took steps to hasten the end of the Vietnam War."